9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal having declared the law in respect of the same very notification, the original authority was bound to follow the same, unless the said declaration of law stand set aside by any other higher forum. It was not open to the original adjudicating authority to take a different view by introducing his own interpretation and by taking support of other decision which are not directly on the point. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said decision of the Tribunal was not accepted and was appealed against by them. In the absence of any such developments, it goes without saying that the Tribunal’s orders are binding on the lower authority, who should have followed the same. - inasmuch as issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication. Admittedly soya oil is classifiable under chapter heading 15 of Central Excise Tariff which is one of the specified items. In as much as tin containers manufactured by the appellant stand consumed within the factory for packing of the refind soya oil, the appellants have claimed the benefit of the said notification. 4. Revenue, being of the view that use of tin containers for packing of soya oils cannot be held consumption of goods in the manufacture of the specified goods and as such benefit of the notification would not be available, initiated proceedings against them for denial of the exemption. The notices issued to the appellant culminated into an order passed by the original Adjudicating Authority vide which he confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that the decision of Hon ble Tribunal Kolkata in the case of Mihijam Vanapati Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 631 (Tri. - Kolkata) interpretate the term consumption employed in the Notification No. 10/96-C.E., and extended benefit to metal containers used in packing Vanaspati under the said notification. This decision of the Tribunal is based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. VM Salgonkar Brothers (P) Ltd., 1988 (99) E.L.T. 3 and Deputy Chief Controller of Import and Export v. K.T. Kosalram. 1999 (110) E.L.T. 366 (S.C.). The Tribunal while arriving at the decisions appears to have failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Apex Court in right earnest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
